Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andy,

From: Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:24 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Cc: Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt



On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 8:01 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
While RFC 4001 really didn't need to extend the zone index to IPv4, the conversation also pertains to IPv6 address types. At least RFC 4001 got it right by not making the zone index part of the default types and defining ipv4z and ipv6z.

So is this a correct summary:

 - zone index is not used in IPv4 at all

I’d be fairly certain that this is the case.

 - zone index is not configured by a client in IPv6 at all

Nobody can point to any clients. However, Jürgen has pointed out that there are Linux files and commands that accept a link-local addresses with a zone. Conceivably, one could extrapolate this to a YANG model.

Thanks,
Acee

 - zone index is assigned by the system (as needed) to IPv6 link-local addresses

I want to add a server option in our code to always reject (or alter)
an edit that contains a zone index.  I need to know the consensus on
whether it is OK to ignore a zone index from a client.
Nothing in RFC 6241 suggests that this is OK for <edit-config>.


Thanks,
Acee

Andy

On 4/14/22, 10:04 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Martin Björklund" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

    I thought the discussion was only about ipv4?


    /martin


    Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
    > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 03:23:31PM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > First of all, I agree that if we were to design this from scratch, I
    > > think we should have a type for just an ip address, and use a second
    > > leaf for the zone (or interface).
    > >
    >
    > The notation 'fe80::4d9:ff04:4fa6:7980%en0' is widely supported in
    > application space. The IPv6 working group has a recurring debate on
    > the usage of zoned IPv6 address in URLs [1], where the debate is about
    > the question whether the % needs to be escaped or not. I do not know
    > where the latest iteration stopped, but details can be found in RFC
    > 6874 and draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03.
    >
    > Philip Homburg's RIPE Labs note [2] might also be an interesting
    > read. According to this, getaddrinfo() actually deals with zoned
    > addresses (and hence even data model implementation that pass data to
    > getaddrinfo() to obtain socket addresses may do the right thing.)
    >
    > My view is that down in the network layer models, you often know the
    > interface by context and ipv6-address-no-zone is sufficient. If you go
    > to application space, you really want "ipv6-address-with-zone" by
    > default in order to support link-local addresses.
    >
    > /js
    >
    > [1] http://[fe80::4d9:ff04:4fa6:7980%en0]/
    >
    > [2] https://labs.ripe.net/author/philip_homburg/whats-the-deal-with-ipv6-link-local-addresses/
    >
    > --
    > Jürgen Schönwälder              Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    > Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod